인터넷화상접견 및 스마트접견 제외처분 취소
1. Of the instant lawsuits, Article 149(2) of the Guidelines on the Management of Expropriation (amended by the Ministry of Justice Rule No. 1132, Oct. 31, 2016) is applicable.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From around 2015, the Defendants: (a) from around 2015, “Internet video meetings” that enable civil petitioners to use a PC installed at home without visiting the correctional institution; and (b) from around 2016, the Defendants are implementing “computer meetings” that enable civil petitioners to visit the correctional institution or use a PC installed at home without using a PC installed at home; and (c) so that civil petitioners may meet with visitors using smartphone
B. 1) On August 5, 2016, the Plaintiff was confined to the Suwon Detention House on the ground of the suspected crime, such as fraud. On October 6, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a criminal act, such as fraud, at the Suwon District Court. The judgment became final and conclusive on October 20, 2016. (2) The Plaintiff was indicted on October 31, 2016 and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor at the Suwon District Court on May 11, 2017.
The Plaintiff appealed on May 15, 2017.
C. On June 26, 2017, while the appellate trial was pending, the Plaintiff filed an application for smart meetings with the head of the Suwon Detention Center.
1) Articles 149(2) and (3), and 153(2)5 of the Guidelines for Expropriation Management, which are established by the Ministry of Justice (hereinafter “instant provision”).
(2) On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s application for a smart meeting on the ground that “only a prior registered civil petitioner may be permitted to hold a smart meeting, but “a convicted prisoner who is being investigated or tried for an additional case is excluded from a person permitted to hold a smart meeting.”
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;
3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. According to the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff filed an application for smart meetings with the head of the Defendant Suwon Detention House on June 26, 2017.